Yup, I kicked the can down the road. My next merge for #901 had the same
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Eric Johnson <erjoh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not sure if this related, but I had a hard time merging #856 in this
> morning. I was following my normal procedure using git-am, updating
> CHANGES.rst, then rebasing to squash into a single commit. Prior to rebase,
> I'd see 065d1919d8cd1e651b92af6220b1408437b07563 in my git-log. During
> rebase -i, I wouldn't see that commit in the list and if I proceeded with
> my squash, that commit would get dropped.
> So, I either made the problem worse by not rebasing and pushing two
> commits (one for #856 and one for updating changes), or I just kicked the
> can down the road. But maybe it'll be "fixed" for next committer?
> My git-foo isn't super strong and I'd welcome insight into how I could've
> cleaned it up with git commands.
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Tomaz Muraus <to...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I personally used all in the past (am, merge, apply-patch), depending on
>> the scenario of which one was easier to work with / apply (I a lot of
>> I also need to check out the original branch and do some merge foo so I
>> merge it cleanly into trunk).
>> I do prefer am since it doesn't result in a merge commit which makes the
>> history look slightly nicer.
>> Having said that, I'm fine with whatever approach is the easier to manage
>> for the person applying the patch as long as it meets this criteria:
>> - Preserve original commit author (preserve original commits as the are)
>> - Commit(s) are signed off by the person applying the changes
>> - We can easily add "Closed #PRNUMBER" or similar message to the commit(s)
>> Another option also is to try "git merge --no-commit" / "git merge
>> --squash", but we need to be careful with those so we don't rewrite
>> (apache git repo actually doesn't allow pushing that, but it can still be
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:49 PM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com>
>> > Hi,
>> > Our PR process (applies to committers but anyone else is welcome to
>> > weigh in) says to download the patch file from GitHub and apply the
>> > patch using the `git am` command.
>> > I find git am to be so fragile, typically I use the --3way flag to
>> > help it try and resolve conflicts but normally is just stumbles on the
>> > slightest issue.
>> > The new process I've been using is :
>> > git fetch https://github.com/<remote user>/libcloud
>> > <remote-branch>:github-<pr>
>> > git merge <github-pr>
>> > .. edit merge message to included Closes #PR
>> > Then push to apache trunk.
>> > An obvious advantage is that in GitHub the PRs show as merged.
>> > https://github.com/apache/libcloud/pull/899
>> > The merge tool in git (instead of the patch) is so much more reliable.
>> > What do people think of this approach? Here is an example -
>> > https://github.com/apache/libcloud/commit/065d1919d8cd1e651b
>> > 8437b07563
>> > Ant